These are the people who represent you

[Growler]

Korea, Vietnam - and WW2.

Remember that whole "draft" thing? Yeah - that there's conscription, sports fans.

Those lads were far from worthless.

To be totally frank, if you're a lawyer, that should be an automatic DIS-qualification for political office beyond Governor of a state. I don't want LAWYERS in Congress. Hell no, I want plumbers, HVAC guys, carpenters, small business owners, steamfitters, and yeah, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Forget the white collar special interest toadies. I want people in there who know how to FIX shtuff for everyone's benefit.


And while I'm dreaming, can I have a good American beer, too?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Growler

To be totally frank, if you're a lawyer, that should be an automatic DIS-qualification for political office beyond Governor of a state. I don't want LAWYERS in Congress. Hell no, I want plumbers, HVAC guys, carpenters, small business owners, steamfitters, and yeah, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Forget the white collar special interest toadies. I want people in there who know how to FIX shtuff for everyone's benefit.

I don't know if I would go that far. Congress is the Legislative Branch and I do want my congresscritters to have education and experience in making legislation.

What exactly is a plumber going to use to help him or her make a decision on legislation? I don't want "your average joe" running this country. Congress is not an entry level job.

The solution is to start electing the right people with the right experience to the position. Not someone who has a letter after their name.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am sure our Korean War and Viet Nam veterans appreciate that attitude.

I can only speak for myself, but I have the utmost respect for our conscripts. They served their country when they were needed and served it honourably.

Ps. Thanks for calling my Father and my Uncles garbage.

Hmmm.... yes, poor choice of words on my part. You have my sincere apology for that.

I didn't mean to imply that conscripts were not good people or that their sacrifices were any less worthy than those of volunteers. However, it is a pretty well-known fact that on the whole that they are not a match for professional volunteer soldiers. While I really am sorry for any offense caused, I'm not about to claim that anyone who is forced to pick up a rifle is as combat-effective as a crack trooper from a more thoroughly trained volunteer unit. It's just not true. We know this and we've seen it on battlefields across the globe.

Korea, Vietnam, and WW2, or WW1, or the Franco-Prussian war, or the Civil War, or any war one might care to think of, don't exactly make a strong case for the efficacy of conscripts. They generally died in large numbers in very short order because they were not interested in being soldiers. Also, I see no moral justification for dragging an unwilling civilian away from his life to fight.

In any case, I am sorry for offending you guys and for my choice of words. My only intent was to say that a more educated and trained soldiery would be more effective.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Hmmm.... yes, poor choice of words on my part. You have my sincere apology for that.

Fair enough. I did not think you really meant that. Crap happens in the heat of posting.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't know if I would go that far. Congress is the Legislative Branch and I do want my congresscritters to have education and experience in making legislation.

What exactly is a plumber going to use to help him or her make a decision on legislation? I don't want "your average joe" running this country. Congress is not an entry level job.

The solution is to start electing the right people with the right experience to the position. Not someone who has a letter after their name.

That's sort of my point, Plat - why does a lawyer/doctor have any more right to lead than a blue collar worker?

What constitutes the "right experience [for] the position"? The ability to prosecute/defend lawsuits? Or the ability to interpret a law for your clients' best interest? I would like to believe that in these cases, constituents are Congress' clients, but when was that last true, on a congress-wide scale?

[August]

Originally Posted by Growler

That's sort of my point, Plat - why does a lawyer/doctor have any more right to lead than a blue collar worker?

What constitutes the "right experience [for] the position"?

Well the Congress is about creating and passing laws so the ability to read and understand a legal document would be one important attribute. How many blue collar guys do you think can do that?

[Growler]

That's the problem, August - reading and interpreting laws. The Constitution is simple enough to interpret - until the lawyers start adding caveats and spin and subjective interpretation to it. As proof, I submit the never-ending, ongoing debate about gun rights - and how both sides claim to be right, based on their interpretation of that 2nd Amendment.

A blue collar guy is more likely to keep it simple; it's when you get lawyers involved that things get needlessly complicated.

And more likely than not, I'm wrong again.

[August]

Originally Posted by Growler

A blue collar guy is more likely to keep it simple; it's when you get lawyers involved that things get needlessly complicated.

No that's a good point. It seems like the ideal then would be somewhere in between because all laws have to stand up to legal challenge. Because too simple and it fails to cover all potential situations, too complicated and most people can't understand it.

(Personally if I had to choose between the two i'd favor too simple and let all the "what if's" get decided on a case by case basis.)

And more likely than not, I'm wrong again.

That kind of attitude eventually leads to not posting and we don't want that!